@misc{Matthies2019, author = {Matthies, Christoph}, title = {Feedback in Scrum}, series = {2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion)}, journal = {2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion)}, publisher = {IEEE}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-7281-1764-5}, issn = {2574-1934}, doi = {10.1109/ICSE-Companion.2019.00081}, pages = {198 -- 201}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Improving the way that teams work together by reflecting and improving the executed process is at the heart of agile processes. The idea of iterative process improvement takes various forms in different agile development methodologies, e.g. Scrum Retrospectives. However, these methods do not prescribe how improvement steps should be conducted in detail. In this research we investigate how agile software teams can use their development data, such as commits or tickets, created during regular development activities, to drive and track process improvement steps. Our previous research focused on data-informed process improvement in the context of student teams, where controlled circumstances and deep domain knowledge allowed creation and usage of specific process measures. Encouraged by positive results in this area, we investigate the process improvement approaches employed in industry teams. Researching how the vital mechanism of process improvement is implemented and how development data is already being used in practice in modern software development leads to a more complete picture of agile process improvement. It is the first step in enabling a data-informed feedback and improvement process, tailored to a team's context and based on the development data of individual teams.}, language = {en} } @article{ReinRamsonLinckeetal.2017, author = {Rein, Patrick and Ramson, Stefan and Lincke, Jens and Felgentreff, Tim and Hirschfeld, Robert}, title = {Group-Based Behavior Adaptation Mechanisms in Object-Oriented Systems}, series = {IEEE software}, volume = {34}, journal = {IEEE software}, number = {6}, publisher = {Inst. of Electr. and Electronics Engineers}, address = {Los Alamitos}, issn = {0740-7459}, doi = {10.1109/MS.2017.4121224}, pages = {78 -- 82}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Dynamic and distributed systems require behavior adaptations for groups of objects. Group-based behavior adaptation mechanisms scope adaptations to objects matching conditions beyond class membership. The specification of groups can be explicit or implicit.}, language = {en} } @article{LeopoldMendlingGuenther2016, author = {Leopold, Henrik and Mendling, Jan and Guenther, Oliver}, title = {Learning from Quality Issues of BPMN Models from Industry}, series = {IEEE software}, volume = {33}, journal = {IEEE software}, publisher = {Inst. of Electr. and Electronics Engineers}, address = {Los Alamitos}, issn = {0740-7459}, doi = {10.1109/MS.2015.81}, pages = {26 -- 33}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Many organizations use business process models to document business operations and formalize business requirements in software-engineering projects. The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), a specification by the Object Management Group, has evolved into the leading standard for process modeling. One challenge is BPMN's complexity: it offers a huge variety of elements and often several representational choices for the same semantics. This raises the question of how well modelers can deal with these choices. Empirical insights into BPMN use from the practitioners' perspective are still missing. To close this gap, researchers analyzed 585 BPMN 2.0 process models from six companies. They found that split and join representations, message flow, the lack of proper model decomposition, and labeling related to quality issues. They give five specific recommendations on how to avoid these issues.}, language = {en} }